A New Scientist report highlights the dramatic differences between consumers’ perception of a company’s “greenness” and reality.
New Scientist investigated consumer perception via a 2008 Earthsense survey of consumer ratings, and compared those numbers to each company’s Trucost score, the estimated cost of its environmental impact as a percentage of its annual revenue. The resulting infographic is striking: you can see a clear divide between consumer perception and real performance of certain companies.
A few examples which standout are potentially perceived as being greener than they are Discovery Communications, whose environment-focused television programming probably influences consumer opinions, and Whole Foods Market, although the article defends them by pointing out that they haven’t yet released all of their emissions data.
On the flip side, some companies rated by consumers as not being environmentally friendly actually have higher green ratings. Ebay, Nike, and brewer SABMiller were three business that scored relatively high environmental ratings in their respective sectors, but consumer rankings show that they do not project their performance to the public well. Some, such as Nike, nay still be suffering from the bad PR they suffered in the ’90s.
A few weeks ago Paul Rogers of the Mercury News wrote that despite the general perception that the current administration having accomplished relatively little Obama has in fact made major strides in national environmental policy. Some examples not included in the article are: the significant tightening of the previously weak regulations surrounding non-conventionally raised livestock, and the FTC’s stepping up efforts to address greenwashing amidst increasing complaints